Debate Now Trump's Immigration Proposal

[jwoodie]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

 

[320 Years of History]

The discriminatory applications of the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ by the American Government and mainstream media reveal that these terms are not used with any real concern for scientific precision, consistency, or completeness. If they were so used, and if the Government really meant what it says it means when it proclaims a “war on terrorism,” then the United States would be declaring war on itself, or, at the very least, upon its allies that have practiced or supported violence against civilians for political ends. Instead, in the popular American discourse, ‘terrorism’ and its derivatives are used selectively to depict those who resort to force in opposing U. S. governmental policies or the policies of its allies.
-- Tomis Kapitan, "Terrorism of 'Terrorism' "

PLEASE STOP CITING ARTICLES WRITTEN BY OTHERS AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN THOUGHTS. The only reason to cite something is to provide factual documentation, if required. If you can't add any intellectual value, please post in a different forum. Thank you.

Red:
I agree that is the purpose of providing references. The thing is that when a writer lacks the intellectual integrity to verify the assumptions they make when composing a post, why should the rest of us even bother paying them any mind?

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

Pink:
The outlandishness of Mr. Trump's proposal to deny Muslims entry to the U.S. is found in that doing so relies on generalizing about people based on a circumstantial trait they may possess. Denying entry based on a geographic point of origin, residence, birth, etc. is no different; it's merely a different basis on which a generalized conclusion about one's character may be drawn.

Mr. Trump's proposed ban in Muslim immigration is outlandish because

• We know that from 1970 to 2014, of the 19 acts of terrorism committed in Japan, not one of them was perpetrated by Muslims.
• It would mandate a "total and complete shutdown” of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.” That as though we don't already know "what's going on." He furthermore would extend the ban to include American citizens who are Muslims. (Now regardless of what rights are legally due to non-citizens, American Muslims are due the same rights every non-Muslim American citizen is.)
  
  What's going on is exactly the same thing that "goes on" when one corners any other potentially dangerous create: the damn thing bites or stings or whatever. That metaphor, of course, cannot be carried further because whereas we have no moral obligation to a nest of hornets, we cannot cavalierly eradicate groups of humans as we would a nest of insects.

Sure, it's convenient to group people with tidy labels and treat them as though everyone on whom one can pin the badge has the same aims and personality traits. Not you, not I, nor anyone else is ever fairly treated by generalizations, and as a nation, one of the things we profess to be is better than failing, as a matter of policy, according individuals the respect they are due as such.

Teal:
It seems to me that PC is the term that, among other things, some speakers/writers use to describe others who have bothered to examine a wider spectrum of details on a given matter than has the speaker. Furthermore, PC seems to be just another label that is widely disdained by folks of all political stripes.

Blue:
Please clarify for us:

• Who exactly are the "we" who are "at the mercy of untold Muslims."
• In what regard are we at their mercy? Our personal property? Our individual lives? Our Constitution? Our position on a declared battlefield of war? Our sovereignty as a nation? Something(s) else? I want to understand the full context in which "we" are "at their mercy."

Green:
Yes, the legal rights granted in the Constitution do not apply to non-U.S. citizens. That said, one either buys that the idea that "inalienable" rights exist as described in our Declaration of Independence, or one does not concur with Mr. Jefferson. One either has a set of principles by which one lives, and lives consistently, not mostly consistently, or often consistently, but consistently, or one does not. Sometimes individuals find it hard to adhere consistently to their own set of ethical principles, that is assuming they even have any, but nations haven't the freedom to be so callous about remaining true to theirs.

Brown:
The reason I decry Mr. Trump's proposed ban on Muslims immigrating to the U.S. has nothing to do with "appeasing Muslim sensibilities." It is because I'm not going to let anyone compromise the principles for which I stand and I'm not going to quietly let Mr. Trump erode from within the principles on which our republic stands. I truly don't give a damn whether Muslims' feelings are hurt because of what Mr. Trump has proposed. I absolutely care not to allow one or several terrorists to drive me to become so chickenshit that I ignore and permit the denuding the values my forebears fought to preserve.

Red (cont'd):
It is simply not accurate that most terrorists are Muslims.

• Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
  
• Straying From the Middle Way: Extremist Buddhist Monks Target Religious Minorities | TIME.com
  
• Price Tag Attacks: Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 Middle East and North Africa Overview
• TE-SAT 2014 - EUROPEAN UNION TERRORISM SITUATION AND TREND REPORT 2014 | Europol
  
• Advanced Search
  
• 
  
• Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11
• The number of terrorists who are actually Muslim or religiously motivated will surprise you

Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: stop participating in it.
- Noam Chomsky

 

[jwoodie]

If you can't be more concise, please go write a book and see if anyone reads it.

 

[555]

It must be a policy that can actually be implemented by the State Dept and INS people on the ground at 1) our international points of Entry and 2) the points of departure for travel to the US (such as international airports, seaports, et al. Airlines typically won't board non-US citizen passengers on US-bound flights who do not have a US entry visa, for example.

So what method will allow the US to "take a break" from foreign visitation while we figure out how to best protect America?

Simplest is to close the boarders to all non-US citizens and non-US visa holders for awhile, thus not discriminating against anyone (and avoiding a religious test such as the proposed "Muslim test").

 

[Vigilante]

What is the problem, AS TRUMP SAID, of stopping immigration, UNTIL CONGRESS CAN DETERMINE HOW BEST TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM!

The only problem I see is that the Congress is FECKLESS and would kick this topic around until after the 2016 election, and if they actually did do something, the muslim in the White House has shown that ANYTHING that would keep HIS PEOPLE from coming here and raping the country, he'd VETO!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country."

Hyperbolic fear-mongering and nonsense, completely untenable, ridiculous and devoid of merit; the produce of unwarranted fear and bigotry.

That Trump's 'plan' is unmitigated idiocy is beyond dispute, where to denounce the bigotry and hate advocated by Trump has nothing to do with the myth of 'political correctness.'

 

[320 Years of History]

It must be a policy that can actually be implemented by the State Dept and INS people on the ground at 1) our international points of Entry and 2) the points of departure for travel to the US (such as international airports, seaports, et al. Airlines typically won't board non-US citizen passengers on US-bound flights who do not have a US entry visa, for example.

So what method will allow the US to "take a break" from foreign visitation while we figure out how to best protect America?

Simplest is to close the boarders to all non-US citizens and non-US visa holders for awhile, thus not discriminating against anyone (and avoiding a religious test such as the proposed "Muslim test").

Your idea is at least equitable. I therefore don't have a problem with it. I don't know what are the impediments to actually implementing your policy idea, but I sure if there be any, they could be overcome.

 

[Militants]

Good picture by you post no 1 poster this treath.

They are communists to in United States. Awsome.

 

[jwoodie]

So we can all thank Mr. Trump for raising this issue?

 

[Militants]

Most normalthinkers in America.

 

[TheGreatKing]

USA should stop immigration not only because of terrorism, but also because creatures from poor countries of Asia and Africa enter USA and steal their jobs, making the host poorer. They are parasites feeding upon their host and the host should stop them from entering their territory.

 

[Foxfyre]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

First, one has to understand the Trump method of campaigning. Every time the media attention wanes a bit or starts shifting to somebody else, he says something totally outrageous, however much it creates controversy, to shift the attention back on himself. He has received hundreds more hours of attention than anybody else gets using this tactic, both in face time for himself, and in discussions about him.

I call this the Coulter method. If anybody can get past their prejudices about Ann and look at it all objectively, every time she has a new book coming out, she makes a point to say something outrageous. She immediately rockets to the center of attention on message boards, Twitter, news feeds and talk shows, etc. and her book immediately rockets onto the best seller's list.

But strip the political correctness outrage off of both of them, and there is a lot of common sense in what they are saying.

The only mistake Trump made--and it may have been intentional to get the media coverage as described--was in saying "all Muslims" instead of "Muslims from countries harboring terrorists."

The latter is really difficult for anybody to argue with.

 

[TheGreatKing]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

First, one has to understand the Trump method of campaigning. Every time the media attention wanes a bit or starts shifting to somebody else, he says something totally outrageous, however much it creates controversy, to shift the attention back on himself. He has received hundreds more hours of attention than anybody else gets using this tactic, both in face time for himself, and in discussions about him.

I call this the Coulter method. If anybody can get past their prejudices about Ann and look at it all objectively, every time she has a new book coming out, she makes a point to say something outrageous. She immediately rockets to the center of attention on message boards, Twitter, news feeds and talk shows, etc. and her book immediately rockets onto the best seller's list.

But strip the political correctness outrage off of both of them, and there is a lot of common sense in what they are saying.

The only mistake Trump made--and it may have been intentional to get the media coverage as described--was in saying "all Muslims" instead of "Muslims from countries harboring terrorists."

The latter is really difficult for anybody to argue with.

Trump is being reserved in saying the whole truth. I am saying all colored people are daughters of the devil and should be annihilated from this planet. They belong only in one place - the fires of hell.

 

[Foxfyre]

And sometimes it is better to say nothing at all than to say something like that.

 

[TheGreatKing]

The truth should be told and should be enforced. And we have the power to blow away all the lies of the devil.

 

[the207life]

Most of what you say I agree with.. but..

In what regard are we at their mercy? Our personal property? Our individual lives? Our Constitution?

Individual lives? Yes. Do I have to count for you the number of American lives which have been lost? Our Constitution? Yes.. do you not remember how hot the gun control debate got after the San Bernardino attacks? Does that not threaten the 2nd amendment?

I absolutely care not to allow one or several terrorists to drive me to become so chickenshit that I ignore and permit the denuding the values my forebears fought to preserve.

I don't know.. something about watching planes fly through buildings and desperate Americans fighting for their lives in Boston that drives me a little "chickenshit".

Red (cont'd):
It is simply not accurate that most terrorists are Muslims.

January 1st – Shooting (15-25+ dead). Cameroon. Boko Haram (Muslim)
January 3-7 – Massacre (2000+ dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
January 4th – Bombing (4 dead). Pakistan. Al-Qaeda linked (Muslim)
January 4th – Bombing (6 dead). Yemen. Al-Qaeda linked (Muslim)
January 4th – Bombing (4 dead). Somalia. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
January 5th – Suicide Bombing (5 dead). Saudi Arabia. ISIL (Muslim)
January 5th – Suicide Bombing (2 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
January 6th – Suicide Bombing (25 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
January 7th – Car Bomb (38 dead). Yemen. Al-Qaeda (Muslim)
January 7th – Mass Shooting (12 dead). France. Al-Qaeda (Muslim)
January 9th – Hostage Crisis (5 dead). France. ISIL (Muslim)
January 10th – Suicide Bombing (9 dead). Lebanon. Al-Nusra Front (Muslim)
January 10th – Suicide Bombing (19 dead). Boko Haram (Muslim)
January 11th – Suicide Bombing (5 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
January 12th – Melee Attack (6 dead). China. Uyghur Separatists (Muslim)
January 23rd – Mass Shooting (15 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
January 23rd – Car Bomb (1 dead). Philippines. Abu Sayaf (Muslim)
January 25th – Attack (67 dead). Philippines. Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (Muslim)
January 28th – Suicide Bomb (13 dead). Libya. ISIL (Muslim)
January 30th – Bombing (60 dead). Pakistan. Jundullah (Muslim)
February 4-5th – Mass Shooting (91+ dead). Cameroon. Boko Haram (Muslim)
February 6th – Mass Shooting (114 dead). Niger. Boko Haram (Muslim)
February 13th – Mass Shooting / Bombing (22 dead). Pakistan. Taliban (Muslim)
February 14-15th – Shooting (3 dead). Denmark. Omar Abdul Hamid El-Hussein (Muslim)
Feburary 17th – Bombing (8 dead). Pakistan. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (Muslim)
Feburary 26th – Suicide Bombing (21 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
February 26th – Bombing (15+ dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
March 2nd – Bombing (2 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
March 2nd – Bombing (6 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
March 3rd – Bombing (3 dead). Yemen. ISIL (Muslim)
March 4th – Bombing (3 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
Marth 7th – Suicide Bombing (58 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
March 15th – Suicide Bombing (14 dead). Pakistan. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (Muslim)
March 18th – Shooting / Hostage Taking (21 dead). Tunisia. ISIL (Muslim)
March 20th – Suicide Bombing (142 dead). Yemen. ISIL (Muslim)
March 25th – Suicide Bombing (17 dead). Libya. ISIL (Muslim)
March 25th – Kidnapping (unknown dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
March 26-27th – Suicide Bombing / Shooting (24 dead). Somalia. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
April 2nd – Hostage Taking / Shooting (151 dead). Kenya. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
April 6th – Mass Shooting / Arson (24 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
April 8th – Ambush (2 dead). Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda (Muslim)
April 12th – Bombing (6 dead). Egypt. ISIL (Muslim)
April 12th – Bombing (8 dead). Egypt. ISIL (Muslim)
April 14th – Car Bomb (17 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
April 14th – Shooting / Bombing (40 dead). Somalia. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
April 17th – Bombing (3 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
April 18th – Suicide Bombing (33 dead). Afghanistan. ISIL (Muslim)
April 19th – Shooting (1 dead). France. Islamist Lone Wolf (Muslim)
April 20th – Bombing (7 dead). Somalia. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
April 22nd – Suicide Bombing (8 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
April 27th – Shooting (2 dead). Bosnia and Herzegovina. Wahhabist Movement (Muslim)
May 3rd – Car Bomb (19 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
May 3rd – Raid (17+ dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
May 4th – Suicide Bombing (1 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
May 8th – Suicide Bombing (22 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
May 10th – Car Bomb (14 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
May 10th – Suicide Bombing (3 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
May 13th – Attack (45 dead). Pakistan. ISIL (Muslim)
May 14th – Suicide Bombing / Hostage Taking. Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
May 17th – Suicide Bombing. (3 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
May 19th – Suicide Bombing (1 dead). Libya. ISIL (Muslim)
May 19th – Suicide Bombing (4 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
May 21st – Suicide Bombing (3 dead). Libya. ISIL (Muslim)
May 22nd – Suicide Bombing (21 dead). Saudi Arabia. ISIL (Muslim)
May 24th – Bombing (3 dead). Pakistan. Baloch Separatists (Muslim)
May 25th – Raid (26 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
May 26th – Attack (2 dead). Kenya. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
May 28th – Car Bomb (10 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
May 29th – Suicide Bombing (4 dead). Saudi Arabia. ISIL (Muslim)
June 1st – Suicide Bombing (41 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
June 11th – Shooting (2 dead). Pakistan. Taliban (Muslim)
June 13th – Suicide Bombing (11 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
June 15th – Suicide Bombing (23 dead). Chad. Boko Haram (Muslim)
June 17th – Raid (38 dead). Niger. Boko Haram (Muslim)
June 17th – Bombing (63 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
June 22nd – Car Bombing / Shooting (9 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)
June 22-23rd – Shooting (42 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
June 23rd – Suicide Bombing (30 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
June 24th – Suicide Bombing (6 dead). Somalia. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
June 25-29th – Massacre / Suicide Bombing / Hostage Taking. Syria. ISIL (Muslim)
June 25th – Bombing / Mass Shooting (8 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
June 26th – Suicide Bombing (20 dead). Syria. ISIL (Muslim)
June 26th – Bombing / Beheading (1 dead). France. ISIL (Muslim)
June 26th – Suicide Bombing (27 dead). Kuwait. ISIL (Muslim)
June 26th – Mass Shooting (38 dead). Tunisia. ISIL (Muslim)
June 26th – Attack (60 dead). Somalia. Al-Shabaab (Muslim)
June 27th – Bombing (12 dead). Iraq. ISIL (Muslim)
June 28th – Suicide Bombing (5 dead). Nigeria. Boko Haram (Muslim)
June 29th – Car Bomb (28 dead). Yemen. ISIL (Muslim)
June 30th – Suicide Bombing (1 dead). Afghanistan. Taliban (Muslim)

Thats only the first half of 2015. So if most terrorists are not Muslim, it is still a fact that 3858+ lives were taken in a span of 6 months by Muslims in the form of terrorist attacks by 11 different groups. This is not just an issue with terrorism.. this is a Muslim issue.

 

[Devaje007]

If we had a wall at boarder that was tall and electricity running through that would help keeping the free loader our of this country

 

[emilynghiem]

If we had a wall at boarder that was tall and electricity running through that would help keeping the free loader our of this country

People have already dug tunnels that go from city to city. They fly planes over the borders.

What we could build instead of just walls is military bases, teaching hospitals, production factories, and campuses to provide services education
and jobs to communities on both sides of the border. We need this especially since too many families have mixed status of US and Mexican citizenship.

Why not have a strip of cities where dual citizenship is recognized and immigrant/migrant workers can be legal residents of their own developments they own shares in?

Such developments can be built based on restitution owed for drug and human trafficking on both sides of the border.
Start embedding into immigration and federal laws that such crimes will come with a price tag requiring convicted wrongdoers to invest equivalent labor and resources into developing
safe communities for victims. Similar to RICO laws that already exist for victims and communities to claim restitution for organized crime.
Let's start enforcing these laws and expanding them to claim and develop land across the border.

Since Mexico boasts 12-30 million estimated nationals living and working illegally in the US,
why not claim land the size of 4-5 cities to represent these cross-over residents. If they
are living in the US then we should be able to claim that much land in Mexico. So set up
city states and claim these as the legal residence of those immigrants, and work out agreements from there.
For every year they lived or worked illegally in the US, they would owe that much restitution to be invested
in developing their own home base cities and states they would own shares in. But they need to pay back the debt
by investing there, creating legal communities so that other immigrants don't have to break laws to access equal
opportunities. The immigrant families and workers can build these themselves, and break the cycle of poverty and oppression,
instead of breaking laws and falling victim to trafficking that preys on this lack of equal opportunity.

Here's the plan I'd like to pitch to Donald Trump to see if he can negotiate with Mexico to set it up:
Earned Amnesty

 

[Foxfyre]

It must be a policy that can actually be implemented by the State Dept and INS people on the ground at 1) our international points of Entry and 2) the points of departure for travel to the US (such as international airports, seaports, et al. Airlines typically won't board non-US citizen passengers on US-bound flights who do not have a US entry visa, for example.

So what method will allow the US to "take a break" from foreign visitation while we figure out how to best protect America?

Simplest is to close the boarders to all non-US citizens and non-US visa holders for awhile, thus not discriminating against anyone (and avoiding a religious test such as the proposed "Muslim test").

That would be the simplest thing but it would be crippling to our economy and really unkind to our friends. There aren't huge numbers of Swiss, French, British, German, Swedish, etc. terrorists coming to America on visas from those countries. In fact there have been none. They come to conduct business, visit friends and relatives, and boost our tourism industry by billions of dollars every year. To needlessly disrespect our friends in the interest of 'not discriminating' against anybody, just sits wrong with me.

But to ban those without proper visas or those with visas issued from countries known to generate and harbor or condone terrorism makes a lot of sense. The ban can be lifted at such time as we have some reasonable means to vet those who will be allowed to enter the country and who will be placed on a 'no admission' list.

I am in favor of discrimination when it is clearly and ONLY to protect and secure the rights of the innocent regardless of who they are. For instance, peaceful American Muslims are at just as much risk as anybody else from murder and mayhem committed by those determined to do that.

 

[emilynghiem]

...may not be so outlandish after all. Despite the hysterical rantings of the PC crowd, we are currently at the mercy of untold numbers of Muslim terrorists who wish to enter our country. Since we currently have no effective screening procedures in place to prevent this, a moratorium on allowing further infiltration is not only logically justified, but a practical necessity.

But isn't this unconstitutional religious discrimination, you ask? No, it is not if it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. We have a perfect right and obligation to screen and delay or deny entry into the United Sates any persons who pose a potential threat to our security.

Some have suggested a geographic, rather than religious, moratorium on entry visas, but that transparent attempt to appease Muslim sensibilities would be seen as a ruse, as well as being ineffective. For example, a French-born Muslim terrorist (sound familiar?) would not be affected by such a scheme.

As often said, all Muslims are not terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslim. It should also be noted that a basic tenet of that religion is conversion by force and execution of apostates. Until we can determine whether someone has truly rejected these principles, shouldn't we err on the side of protecting our citizens?

First, one has to understand the Trump method of campaigning. Every time the media attention wanes a bit or starts shifting to somebody else, he says something totally outrageous, however much it creates controversy, to shift the attention back on himself. He has received hundreds more hours of attention than anybody else gets using this tactic, both in face time for himself, and in discussions about him.

I call this the Coulter method. If anybody can get past their prejudices about Ann and look at it all objectively, every time she has a new book coming out, she makes a point to say something outrageous. She immediately rockets to the center of attention on message boards, Twitter, news feeds and talk shows, etc. and her book immediately rockets onto the best seller's list.

But strip the political correctness outrage off of both of them, and there is a lot of common sense in what they are saying.

The only mistake Trump made--and it may have been intentional to get the media coverage as described--was in saying "all Muslims" instead of "Muslims from countries harboring terrorists."

The latter is really difficult for anybody to argue with.

Trump is being reserved in saying the whole truth. I am saying all colored people are daughters of the devil and should be annihilated from this planet. They belong only in one place - the fires of hell.

Dear TheGreatKing
Of your statement on race, two things might be proven scientifically to explain some of this discrimination by color:
1. If we were to study the ill effects of witchcraft sorcery voodoo and other dark magic practices manipulating dark occult energy, this can be shown to correlate with disruptive and destructive violence, addictions, genocide and other generational abuses. The experts who practice spiritual healing are all in agreement this negative energy in curses is carried by generations and has to be spiritually renounced and removed before ppl can heal and be reconciled with positive life giving energy that unites humanity and restores peaceful equal relations and normal health.

So TheGreatKing you can show it is the curses carried by the tribes in Africa and the Native American tribes that stir the hatred behind genocide wars and slavery that send ppl through hell. And this also applies to European tribes and lineage cursed with witchcraft and other unnatural dark practices that affect future generations.

These patterns could be proven by science by mapping the statistics and showing the effect of healing after these root causes are removed by forgiveness therapies that break the generational cycles of abuse addiction and ill will passed down like a sickness.
Correlation can be proved, but causation remains faith based and can be agreed upon even if not proven.

2. Another point that can be proven about Caucasian race vs colored:
Look up the bone marrow donation policies and why they designate four minority groups of African Latino Asian and Native American. Unlike Caucasian donors and recipients who have 9/10 chances of finding matches due to HLA compatibility with each other, people of the other racial groups do not have as compatible HLA factors and only have 1/10 chances. That is why the registry seeks to match donors by ethnicity in order to increase chances of finding a match. And biracial ppl have so little chance it is by luck they find one at all.

So the Caucasian ppl have an advantage in survival here while minorities are in the opposite position. If you want to argue against mixing races, this can be used to argue it is better for survival to keep the races pure.

(I have one anthropologist friend who argues it is better to mix the races and evolve to a higher level where the best traits of all of them survive.)

Whatever you believe TheGreatKing you have the right to that but not to impose on ppl who disagree and have equally protected beliefs.

The best approach I recommend for you is to support tax breaks to encourage and reward ppl in investing in economic and educational development so all countries can have freedom and oppotunity as in America. That way nobody has to depend on coming here to have equal freedom security and justice, but it is established voluntarily and not by force of religion or politics. People naturally organize by like beliefs and culture. So encourage all people to invest in developing campus facilities in all countries to manage education jobs and services, and people from all countries and cultures can benefit equally while helping their own communities.